...the BPL [Boston Public Library] is in moderately hot fiscal water, and one solution that has been aired is the closing of a number of branch libraries. Both president Amy Ryan and board chairman Jeffrey Rudman insisted that they find this prospect distasteful, but that did little to pacify the crowd. The library-going public understandably does not want any branch closed.

Some suspect that this crisis is not entirely about money, and they’re probably right. The library is facing a shortfall of roughly $3.5 million, mostly because of expected state budget cuts. That is steep, but not necessarily insurmountable. Some people believe that the library could raise that much money, if money were the only issue.

No, another issue — carefully couched — is consolidation. That means closing underused branches or those in lousy facilities, instead of spending the money to make them marginally better. Of course, to say that publicly would be terrible politics, even if has the benefit of a certain cold logic. [emphasis added]

Politics to a certain extent is about divining the public will and acting in accordance with that… But can the public will can be about improving things in ways that produce good outcomes in the longer rather than the shorter term?

And from Section 4 of the report - “Analysis of Failures by DRD as Shareholder”

4.1 Background

The Shareholder Unit (SU) in DRD was originally established as one element of the overall governance model appropriate to NIW as a government owned company. As noted previously, from 2008-09 NIW was categorised as an NDPB for public expenditure purposes. This was an indirect result of the deferral of domestic water charging which necessitated the continuation of funding by DRD. This change in status coupled with the overall desire of the DRD Accounting Officer to improve public accountability led to the governance architecture for NIW being strengthened in May 2008. [added emphasis]

And

4.3 Findings

A key issue for NIW has been and continues to be the confusion over organisational strategy and the status of the organisation as both a GoCo and an NDPB. This has created an incredibly complex governance and stakeholder environment involving the Utility Regulator, the SU; and from 2008-09, the additional overlay of NDPB accountability requirements. In addition to the complexity of the model, evidence presented to the IRT has highlighted the significant resource commitment required across the entire governance system to maintain the model. This governance structure is heavily demanding on both DRD and NIW and is reflective of the increased public accountability. [added emphasis]

IRT’s key finding for DRD, as Shareholder, relates the slow speed of response to the following events:

• strengthening NED capacity and ensuring this was in line with good governance;
• appointing a new CEO following the Chair’s appointment into dual role; and
• appointing the CEO of NIW as Accounting Officer immediately following reclassification of the organisation as an NDPB.

The IRT recognises that the delays outlined above were in part due to the complex political environment surrounding the Water Reform programme and in part due to the timeline required to secure inter-Departmental approvals and clarification with DFP. That said, these delays contributed to the creation of a governance environment that has led to the circumstances in which the governance failures noted in the previous section have occurred. However, this is no excuse for the failures in procurement which have been identified within NIW.

In terms of DRD’s role in the Internal Audit environment of NIW we consider that prior to May 2008 DRD was slow to act to ensure that NIW was taking internal audit matters seriously. Recent events have demonstrated that the DRD has given enhanced attention to NIW’s performance in following up audit recommendations. The Department has been encouraged by the increased attention this matter has received under the direction of the current CEO to whom it has given strong support and encouragement.

“As somebody who was actually at Hatfield throughout, I can say that while one of the parties might have arrived with that agenda it was most definitely not the basis on which the Conservative Party brought the participants together.

“As we made clear at the time, the purpose was to help promote political stability and in particular explore means of overcoming the impasse on policing and justice and avoiding a collapse.

“There is only one electoral pact - between the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party.  That is what both parties are committed to making work.”

Firstly, the Ulster Unionist constitution allowed the party membership to recall it’s delegates (and in parties like this, your negotiators are delegates and not representatives) and instruct them on what position they could take in negotiations. This had three results

• They were unable to negotiate meaningfully while their opponents were under no such duress.
• They became an attractive target for ‘entryism’ and as soon as the negotiations were over, a large section of their party left to join a different party - the party for whom they had clearly been the agents for some considerable time
• They were electorally smashed at the subsequent elections. A lot of the sharper leadership material departed leaving the sort of geniuses who were able to negotiate this great victory in charge.

The British Labour Party succumbed to similar madness in the 1980s. The Bennites made a strategic decision to expose the party leadership to the wrath of its activists. It campaigned on a ‘deselect your MP’ platform whereby a small number of fanatics in the Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs) would seek to unseat candidates who didn’t toe the anti-EEC / pro CND / Alternative Economic Strategy (AES) line. The net result was supposed to be a coherent party that could campaign on a socialist platform. It ignored a few key points:

1. They were they not popular polices in the first place. And, compounding this error, most political parties form their policies by negotiating with the electorate. This was effectively ruled out by this process
2. That there were small unrepresentative groupings - particularly Militant - that would be able to use this opportunity (in much the same way that the DUP used the UUP more than twenty years later) to use the party as a vehicle for their own party development

Militant weren’t as capable as the DUP and they managed to seriously damage the party and facilitated a polarisation of British politics. It allowed the Thatcherite Tory radicals a much more open run than they really deserved.

So, are the Lib-Dems open to a spot of Entryism of the Militant / DUP variety? None is evident at the moment. But take a look at their slogan, will you?

“Change that works for you. Building a fairer Britain”.

Labour’s slogan is “a future fair for all.” The Tories are going an a “year for change” message. This is not a party with a distinctive principled vision that it has communicated to the electorate. It’s not one that has a coherent membership.

Their leadership may have to conduct the biggest negotiations of their lives as delegates. Their instructions will come from a membership who is receiving overtures from the two other main parties.

I’m glad I’m not in Nick Clegg’s shoes.

And DC’s Improbable blog lists the culprits

Here is the roll of shame, updated on 12 March (the last six signed in the last 24 hours)

Tredinnick, David Con
Simpson, Alan Lab
Russell, Bob LibDem
Pound, Stephen Lab
Dismore, Andrew Lab
Simpson, David Democratic unionist
McDonnell, John Lab
Campbell, Gregory Democratic unionist
Cohen, Harry Lab
Corbyn, Jeremy Lab
Drew, David Lab
Gray, James Con
Hancock, Mike LibDem
Hermon, Lady Ulster unionist
Key, Robert Con
Hemming, John LibDem
Bone, Peter Con
Davies, Dai Independent
Mates, Michael Con
Dodds, Nigel Democratic unionist
Wyatt, Derek Lab
Sarwar, Mohammad Lab
Hamilton, Fabian Lab
Winterton, Nicholas Con
Davies, Philip Con
Leigh, Edward Con
Barlow, Celia Lab
Ellwood, Tobias Con
Leech, John Lib Dem
Main, Anne Lab
Robinson, Peter Democratic unionist
McCrea, Dr William Democratic unionist
Paisley, Ian Democratic unionist
Brady, Graham Con
Cook, Frank Lab
Hall, Patrick Lab
Binley, Brian Con
Pugh, John Lib dem
Davey, Edward Lib dem
Weir, Mike Scottish Nationalist
Sharma, Virendra Kumar Lab
Abbott, Diane Lab
Williams, Mark Lib dem
Horam, John Con
Widdecombe, Ann Con
Browne, Jeremy Lib dem
Spicer, Michael Con
Maclean, David Con
McCafferty, Chris Lab
Buck, Karen Lab
George, Andrew Lib Dem
Vis, Rudi Lab
Walter, Robert Lab
Whittingdale, John Con
Farron, Timothy Lib Dem

Is there a clue in an earlier Irish Times report?

Detectives in Ireland have been working on the case since late last year with their counterparts in the US and Europe, including Sweden. Those arrested yesterday are from Algeria, Croatia, Palestine, Libya and the US. They are aged in their mid-20s to late-40s. The Irish Times understands the suspects were taken into custody on the basis of information supplied to the Garda by the FBI that came to light after surveillance of the suspects’ communications, including e-mails.

The Ghosts of the Road

It was ghosts, he said, leaning over his pint
In the pensioners bar
You see them walking the road
Even in daylight
Hunched over talking to themselves
Bearing the weight of the past on the shoulders
Sure they’ve been cast aside
Used and spat out
Take your man, Smoky, aye, he was one of the best
Would have been bombing and shooting and
taking them on at the worst of things
He was one of their hardest bravest men
Or Bobby, I mind when Bobby wasn’t as he is
the way he is now like, sitting today already drunk
or more never stopped being drunk from
last night, last week, last month, last year;
Oh he was one who chased the women and had a curl in his hair
Really he wouldn’t hurt a fly
Unless he had to
Sure he’d been a soft touch underneath
And you’d be in your bed your face smashed from looking
at his girl the wrong way and suffering from a terrible hangover
When the door would be rapping at 7am
And who would be standing there with his face cleaned
looking slick and sorry, apologetic
For having hurt you the night before
Aw, man there’s so many ghosts walk this road and how messed up they are
Messed in the head and treated like dirt no matter what they gave the movement
It’d break your heart so it would
If you really knew the history of these men
these women who yell and scream at anything going
Nothing broke them, not the Brits, not the screws, not the years on the blanket
It was our own that broke them, it was
That’s the heartbreak of it all
It was our own that broke them.

Congress of Vienna:

It declared only established states could recognise other states (the British were signed up to this at its outset)

The Montevideo convention

• A permanent population - NI check
• Defined territory - NI check
• Government - NI check
• Capacity to enter into relations with other states - NI check (Westminster enters them, Stormont enacts them – see all EU legislation)

OK, so Montevideo wasn’t broadly adopted. What else?

Recognition by the UN

UK incorporating NI fully recognised. (Only the 32CSM are actively disputing this via the UN and I doubt even they think it will be successful)

Social theory

Well you can’t do much better than Max Weber

His definition - the state must retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. In Northern Ireland the majority demand the only legitimate uses of violence must be within the law or through agents of the state (armed forces or police).

So under the broad definitions above how do republican political actors reject NI as a legitimate political state? 

Those in administration could refuse to recognise international agreements concluded by the state (UK) and they and others could recognise that violence is not solely legitimate in the hands of state forces or under state law.

This has been distilled down to a State will maintain its own internal security and protect its borders. So again, if you support the State - support its forces of law and enforcement of those laws and abide by international agreements that legitimise the State.

It is very easy to see ways to reject British State legitimacy over a northern ireland in the UK through the above. It is equally easy to see those recognising Northern Ireland as a legitimate part of the UK by their actions.

Peter Robinson said

“I have done all that I can to encourage the Ulster Unionist Party to support the motion.I entered the process of engagement with that party, both at Hillsborough Castle and afterwards, in good faith. I wanted that party to be fully involved, and, as a result of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement, Sir Reg Empey and Margaret Ritchie are now chairing an important Executive working group on the functioning of the Executive. Good work is being done by that working group.”

But Margaret Ritchie said on the contrary…

“There is a parading working group, to which the SDLP and the UUP need not apply. Elected Ministers are not allowed to see any papers, but Sinn Féin is happy to share them with the Orange Order. The Executive function and delivery working group has four-party involvement, but, after six meetings, it is going nowhere fast. There is a St Andrews unfinished business working group and an Executive backlog working group, which is chaired by the DUP and Sinn Féin but struggles to make progress.”

Who’s right? But have you noticed, Robinson made a “four party coalition” offer to the UUs and the SDLP.

“We have not been able to reach all-party agreement on those matters as yet, but last night I offered Sir Reg tangible evidence of a four-party coalition and a public assurance that the DUP would not use its votes on the Executive to override the votes of any three Ministers if they wanted a matter to be further considered. That offer was made in the context of the UUP supporting the devolution of policing and justice, and I am disappointed that it does not appear that that will happen. Nonetheless, I am prepared to repeat that offer in circumstances in which the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP approach Executive business in good faith. Whatever the outcome of the vote today, we should not be distracted from doing what is right.”

Unctuous perhaps, but what was wrong with that Reg and Margaret – or were you listening? Margaret also said an agreed Cohesion, Sharing and Integration (CSI) document was due to emerge from FMDFM onThursday, when she was due to receive a copy. Did you get it Margaret and will you share it with us in the interests of transparency?

The same source drew attention to the fact that such an arrangement would have to be worked out and settled ahead of an Assembly election being called.

No one can predict the outcome of any election but Unionism figures the gap between the two Unionist blocks with Jim Allister of the TUV in the field is going to narrow and break down at around 24/25 Assembly seats each.

There is a view across the political spectrum that Sinn Fein has steadied the ship due to Martin Mc Guinness’s   leadership and to the delivery on policing and justice.

Against this background there is a possibility that Sinn Fein has the potential to grow the party.

To follow the logic of the Conservative party’s affiliation with the Ulster Unionist party and the desire of the Conservatives, out of their own mouths,  ‘to elevate politics onto the national stage
‘and not to allow it to be dragged into the gutter of NI tribalism,’ there can be no Tory involvement in Unionist head counts through Unionist unity.

Would their inclusion in such a political potion not be the antithesis of what the Conservative vision purports to be ?

This begs the question then. Why did Owen Patterson want anything to do with the Hatfield House discussions if we are to accept the integrity of the quote attributed to one of the Unionist Talks participants that the real goal was ‘about forming an electoral entity” ahead of the Assembly elections?

And from the report [pdf file]

3 The collapse of the structure was due to the undermining of one pier’s foundation caused by ‘scour’ erosion. The structure is unusual in that the piers did not extend down to the ‘bedrock’, but are instead founded within the manmade causeway/weir formed of large stone blocks (rip-rap) resting on the bed of the estuary. Thus the viaduct piers were prone to erosion or ‘scour’ damage.

4 Maintaining the causeway/weir was of paramount importance to ensure the integrity of the viaduct structure itself. In 1967 the superstructure of the viaduct was replaced and significant grouting work was undertaken to the causeway/weir, extending to a depth of two metres into the structure, to stabilize it. These works, it was believed, would generally reduce the need for on-going maintenance, particularly the unloading of rip rap stone which had been regularly carried out to maintain the causeway/weir profile by replacing stones washed away by the tides. Since this time the placing of rip-rap was more limited and appeared to be carried out only to protect the piers.

5 Over time, erosion of a section of the causeway/weir plateau between Piers 4 and 5 caused changes to the water flow under the structure, resulting in the majority of the water flowing in the deepened channel between these two piers, further increasing erosion. In a relatively short period of time, the weir ‘crest’ receded from the seaward side of these piers to beneath the span between them and, subsequently, onto the other (estuary) side of the viaduct. In the months prior to the collapse, the channel deepened further and the flow became ever stronger with standing waves and, latterly, a ‘piping’ mechanism causing further ‘scour’ action. Eventually Pier 4 became undermined and collapsed.

6 A number of days after the collapse of the viaduct, as the initial investigations proceeded, engineers established that the first challenge to be faced in rebuilding the viaduct was stabilisation and re-instatement of the weir, before any work on replacing the collapsed structure could commence.

7 A key finding of this investigation is that since the grouting works were undertaken on the causeway/weir in 1967, the engineering emphasis has been focussed on the maintenance of the viaduct structure itself. However the condition of the grouting in the causeway weir deteriorated over time and eventually the causeway/weir required maintenance. By this time, although protection of the pier foundations was still being undertaken, the importance of maintaining the weir profile was no longer fully appreciated. Prior to the collapse, therefore, it was no longer appreciated that the structure as a whole comprised two separate components: a causeway/weir and a viaduct. [added emphasis]

And

12 Malahide Viaduct had received routine two yearly ‘thorough’ inspections by IÉ in 2005 and 2007 and a ‘special’ underwater inspection by a specialist company in 2006. No serious faults were found and it was recommended that the piers should be re-pointed when convenient, as the mortar loss was not in need of timely repair. It was further recommended that the substructure units be inspected underwater at intervals not to exceed six years and soundings taken after exceptional occurrences. It appears that none of the inspectors had any detailed knowledge of the particular foundation arrangements, although such information is often not available for a structure of this age. [added emphasis]

And from the report’s recommendations

Recommendation 1

Complete all actions in “Action taken or in progress since the incident” section of this report.

Recommendation 2

The structures standard should be revised to include more information on ‘scour’, the erosive effects of different water conditions (e.g. standing waves), particularly in the context of the design of remedial measures.

Recommendation 3

The introduction of the revised structures standard should be supported by the running of a series of Structures Inspection Training Courses. The training should incorporate ‘follow up’ mentoring in the field by experienced, competent staff.

Recommendation 4

Roles and reporting lines for structures and track patrolling inspections should be reviewed and a ‘hand-over’ process should be put in place to ensure knowledge is not lost on staff movements within the organisation or when staff leave the service. [added emphasis]

The whole issue of Ard Fheis motions and how sessions are chaired needs to be seriously reformed, in order to facilitate genuine debate, cut out waffling and censor out irrelevant motions. The organisers also need to adopt the slogans of “FAIRNESS” and “EQUALITY” that were emblazoned on the backdrop and actually apply them on how they conduct the Árd Fheis and treat us plebs at it.

Debate is essentially a fiction and recommendations to improve the management of that fiction that don’t free up delegates to be moved by arguments seem an exercise in pointlessness. As things stand most motions could be decided in advance by people sending in the votes they have agreed at local level thus cutting out the need for mismanaged but mainly futile debates Ó Súilleabháin and others have got so hot under the collar about.

From Reiss’s article

This was the same president who would subsequently overrule his NSC staff in late 2006 when he believed that it would enhance the chances for peace if Gerry Adams was allowed to visit the United States, a policy I supported because Adams had fulfilled his promise to move his constituency to support the rule of law. The decision also showed that Bush would reflexively favor no particular religious, ethnic, or political group (even when it might have been advantageous to do so for domestic political reasons). What mattered most was advancing the cause of peace.

Reiss’s magisterial review of Blair chief of staff Jonathan Powell’s memoir Great Hatred, Little Room endorses the Blair achievement but criticises him for appeasing SF at key junctures when he should have called their “ploy and bluff.” In other words, the post 9/11 Bush administration argued in favour of a harder line than the Brits and took a different stance from the Clinton administration. Autres temps, autre moeurs.

The British government never seemed to ask why any of the Northern Ireland political parties would ever agree on closure when they could always expect to extract more concessions at the next meeting or after the next crisis. As the promise of the Good Friday Agreement gradually receded from view, ongoing paramilitary violence and criminality deepened public cynicism and caused Northern Ireland’s economy to fall further behind the Republic of Ireland’s. Most of my friends in Northern Ireland endured this seemingly interminable process stoically, but I dare say none would recommend the ordeal as a model for other countries.

Bogdanor recalls

Before 1914, Major-General Henry Wilson, Director of Military Operations at the War Office, sought to sabotage the Liberal Government’s policy of Irish Home Rule by providing the Conservative Opposition with details of confidential ministerial discussions. Some serving officers declared that they would refuse to obey orders if the Government sought to move against illegal arms depots in Ulster

Wilson’s latest biographer Prof Keith Jeffrey of Queen’s records that he resumed his championship of the Unionist cause after the war when..

he became an MP and was chief security adviser to the new Northern Ireland government. As such, he became a target for nationalist Irish militants, being identified with the security policies of the Belfast regime, though wrongly with Protestant sectarian attacks on Catholics. He is remembered today in unionist Northern Ireland as a kind of founding martyr for the state.

Brown’s claims of ever rising Defence budgets may be controversial but the verdict of Bogdanor ( who was Cameron’s political tutor at Oxford btw) is definitive.

Lord Guthrie’s remark that “not fully funding the Army ... undoubtedly cost the lives of soldiers”, blaming Gordon Brown for loss of life because of decisions made when he was Chancellor, hardly falls within that category ( of criticising in calm and measured tones). It is unseemly to use the deaths of soldiers in Afghanistan as the basis for a personal attack upon the Prime Minister.

“Look, I don’t think a hunger strike can be used as a pretext for human rights to free people. Imagine if all the criminals in Sao Paulo entered into hunger strikes to demand freedom.

We have to respect the decisions of the Cuban legal system and the government to arrest people depending on the laws of Cuba, like I want them to respect Brazil, like I want to respect what the United States does to comply with its laws.

But it’s not just in Cuba that people died from hunger strikes. Everybody knows what happened in Ireland. How many people of the IRA died on hunger strikes? I see many people today criticizing Cuba for causing a death, and they said nothing about the deaths of the IRA. It’s as if it were a normal thing to die in Ireland and not normal for people to die in other countries.

I would like that it hadn’t happened. But I cannot question the reasons why Cuba arrested him just like I don’t want Cuba to question me about people who are arrested in Brazil.”

Independent on new Welsh number 8 Gareth Delve
Eddie Butler thinks England are spoiling the Six Nations.
And the Western Mail on Geordan Murphy keeping out Kearney.